"NAMBLA has members, contributors, and supporters in Pennsylvania who expect us to do our jobs and keep them abreast of developments on the legislative front in their state," Kid E. Diddler, NAMBLA's director of public affairs, said in a statement about the calls. "We can be just as tone deaf in Happy Valley as the NRA is in Newtown."

I got a robocall from the NRA a month ago here in CO... the thing is, they want me to give them money to fight against background checks... I actually agree with them that the AWB is stupid and that magazine sizes are generally irrelevant.... but I'm not going to give money to a crazy ass group that thinks people should be able to buy guns with less difficulty than it takes for me to get Claritin D. The realities with respect to gun crime are that handguns account for the VAST majority of gun crimes, they don't have particularly large magazines to start with, and we, as a nation, have worked diligently over the last 30 years to turn mental health cases out onto the streets because conservatives thought people were freeloading by living in inpatient mental health facilities even though they didn't have money. We made it far easier to get guns than to get mental healthcare, and we're farking insane if we expect any other result. That said, you'd have to be one of those mental patients to not see that selling guns without background checks is just nuts... the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places, that should anger the fark out of any responsible gun owner.

BeowulfSmith:Boo farking hoo. So, the civil rights group the focuses on protecting the Second Amendment is trying to rally support to oppose legislation that is in direct violation of the amendment their entire organization was founded to protect? Those monsters.

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous grandstanding I have ever seen on the parts of these politicians and on the parts of a good portion of the comments above. You think there are no gun rights supporters in Connecticut? That because this tragedy happened, magically every person in Connecticut who doesn't agree with further gun bans lose their rights to hear an opposing view point? That the NRA and their state affiliates lose their rights of free speech?

Feel free to disagree with the statements made by the NRA. Feel free to donate money to politicians and political groups that oppose the NRA. But don't you dare suggest that we should be silencing people because you've decided their political speech is distasteful. There is literally nothing more un-American than that (well, I suppose other than, you know, throwing people into concentration camps because of their ethnicity, like FDR did, or depriving people of their civil liberties, like most of the South did under Jim Crow... two excellent examples of why giving the government more power often doesn't have positive effects for the general populace).

So, get your panties unbunched and get off your ass and do something the right way for once. Campaign to pass an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the Second Amendment once and for all, so then you can pass whatever restrictions or outright bans you want. Until then, quit using the bully pulpit to push for unconstitutional limitations to American civil liberties. Whether you agree with them or not, they exist. The more you weaken them, the less protection everyone has against government intrusion into our lives (PATRIOT Act, for example).

They don't focus on protecting the second amendment... they focus on idiocy, stopping background checks, donating money to ALEC to fight against gay marriage and for lower corporate income taxes... the idea that the NRA is about gun rights is about as naive as thinking NAMBLA is about love, not rape.

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Boo farking hoo. So, the civil rights group the focuses on protecting the Second Amendment is trying to rally support to oppose legislation that is in direct violation of the amendment their entire organization was founded to protect? Those monsters.

Seriously, this is the most ridiculous grandstanding I have ever seen on the parts of these politicians and on the parts of a good portion of the comments above. You think there are no gun rights supporters in Connecticut? That because this tragedy happened, magically every person in Connecticut who doesn't agree with further gun bans lose their rights to hear an opposing view point? That the NRA and their state affiliates lose their rights of free speech?

Feel free to disagree with the statements made by the NRA. Feel free to donate money to politicians and political groups that oppose the NRA. But don't you dare suggest that we should be silencing people because you've decided their political speech is distasteful. There is literally nothing more un-American than that (well, I suppose other than, you know, throwing people into concentration camps because of their ethnicity, like FDR did, or depriving people of their civil liberties, like most of the South did under Jim Crow... two excellent examples of why giving the government more power often doesn't have positive effects for the general populace).

So, get your panties unbunched and get off your ass and do something the right way for once. Campaign to pass an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the Second Amendment once and for all, so then you can pass whatever restrictions or outright bans you want. Until then, quit using the bully pulpit to push for unconstitutional limitations to American civil liberties. Whether you agree with them or not, they exist. The more you weaken them, the less protection everyone has against government intrusion into our lives (PATRIOT Act, for example).

I happen to own what most people would regard as an excessive number of large caliber and capacity and rate of fire weapons. My wife got a call a couple weeks ago from the NRA telling her that Obama was going to take my guns away. She was like, "Thank God".

1. The NRA is very likely the biggest reason why we do not have an enforceable gun regulation policy.2. The NRA's successful lobbying for the (too powerful) gun manufacturing industry is why this country has a weapons black market, period.

No one is going to take your guns. You can point to Feinstein or pluck out a few anecdotes of fringe leftists, but it doesn't change the fact that you are screaming at imaginary terrors.

I am a gun owner in California. Even here, a plethora of self-defense options available to basically everyone. I can't even begin to understand what people like you are afraid of. Then again, I've come across far too many people that are surprised that I own guns in CA because the shiat they hear from the NRA/Limbaugh.

Because, for all the lip service they give to moderation, safety and all that good stuff, all they really care about is their guns. And they'd rather have no gun regulation at all than even the weakest, most unobtrusive legislation that goes even one iota further than they're comfortable with. If you can't construct a system that completely exempts them from any sort of social responsibility, then they won't have it.

davidphogan:So we're back to only the victims have the right to have an opinion?

Jesus christ

. No. The NRA can do this, some people just think perhaps they shouldn't have done it. Expressing that opinion is not the equivalent of stifling free speech. It's just more free speech. There is no 'only the victims can do X' here.

davidphogan:I don't like that suddenly they're evil for having an opinion while anti-gun groups can exploit the dead kids with impunity.

See, this is what I'm talking about right here. When you say gun control advocates can 'exploit the dead' with impunity - without punishment, it implies gun rights advocates like the NRA are being punished. That's playing the victim card. The NRA is not being punished for these calls. They're getting criticized for them by their opponents. Just as you criticized gun control advocates for 'exploiting the dead'. Both sides are vocalizing their cause with impunity - that's what free speech is.

See, you started to make a good point, then completely contradicted yourself. You just admitted that fringe elements are in fact trying to take away the right to own guns. Then you claimed nobody is.

Craptastic: See... This is why political conversation has gone to shiat.

Ummm, maybe it's people making points like you tried to.

How many guns have been taken away from you, Junior?

None? Holy crap!

I don't own any, so unless you count my Red Ryder my mom took away...

Oh, crap! My mom's a gun grabber too!

/seriously, if you're going to say there are NO gun grabbers, it would help if you don't acknowledge they exist in the same post//being ineffective doesn't mean you don't exist///the mafia tried that like

You should note that I didn't claim that there are no "gun-grabbers". I only asked if any guns have been "grabbed". The answer is "NO". Jesus Christ, people get weird in gun-threads. "It hasn't ever happened, but it MIGHT!"

davidphogan:The NRA is obviously bad at connecting with the typical voter, but it still seems odd that they're the only ones who get called out for politicizing Newtown when anyone who wants gunned restricted for any reason can trot out the victims with impunity.

I believe those victims are the reason, aren't they? I sure don't hear anyone saying they want to restrict guns just for the hell of it.

Moonfisher:It's cute how so many conservatives were cheering when Occupy protestors had their first amendment rights violated by police because "they were told to disperse and that's the law," but scream if the law says they have to register their guns. Bless their hearts.

Isn't "Bless their hearts" an underhanded Southern way if saying "Christ, what an asshole" ?

It's cute how so many conservatives were cheering when Occupy protestors had their first amendment rights violated by police because "they were told to disperse and that's the law," but scream if the law says they have to register their guns. Bless their hearts.

mrshowrules:pedrop357: mrshowrules: pedrop357: mrshowrules: If you are going to jump into an exchange, at least try and get up to speed on what is being talked about.

The point I was making is that private sales are a money making business and private sellers can make significant profits and some gun stores actually don't make that much money because of overhead (or whatever reason). Therefore the profit/volume argument against a store versus a private seller regarding background checks is pretty stupid.

Private sellers can only legally sell their own guns acquired for personal use. They cannot get into the business of selling firearms without a license.

Are you suggesting that there's a significant profit to be made selling items from a private collection on a regular basis?

yes.

If they're selling on a regular basis and making a profit, it would certainly seem like they're actually dealing in firearms without a license.

Like I said, it would be nice if the ATF was tracking this. If background checks were mandatory, that would certainly solve that problem.

You really are a moron if you think the kinds of people talked about in your articles would conduct background checks. They're already breaking multiple laws and collecting a special premium to do so.

SRD:whidbey: SRD: Gun violence is down 50 percent and continues to fall.

Yeah, Sandy Hook was just a blip on the map. Oh well. Shiat happens, right?

The second allows us to own similar arms to the average soldier.

The fark it does.

So if all rifles were gone and he used a pistol or shotgun or bomb does that make it better. He took years to plan it. He was a sociopath. Gun permit holders owners are 7 to 14 times less likely to be arrested for a crime than the average public. So it seems to me we are more sane in general. Sandy hook was terrible and his mother was negligent. But gun violence by a large margine is by average pistols with less than 6 shots fired and by felons. And the FBI has even stated more gun laws have little to no effect on crime. All rights are important. None should be taken lightly. And no I'm not scared as someone stated I'm a collector.

By all means, be a collector of weapons.

I'm still going to comment when someone waves a bunch of gun porn in my face and then tells me no one can do shiat about regulating weapons because the Constitution.

Guns are not an absolute right. They are subject to regulation, and we as a society have the right to determine what those regulations should be.

BayouOtter:mrshowrules: pedrop357: firefly212: . the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places, that should anger the fark out of any responsible gun owner.

If you're in the business of selling guns, you have to have a license and do checks.

If you're just selling your private collection, it's no different than selling any other object that is protected by the constitution whether it's books, cameras, video games, etc.

So obviously stores shouldn't have to background checks either. Books are in Libraries so we should have gun Libraries as well right?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you understand current federal law? Under it, there are private sellers and dealers.The guy running Jim's Sporting Goods with a gun counter is a dealer, he's in it for profit. He buys guns from the factory and sells them as a commercial business.My uncle who sells one of his older rifles or shotguns every couple of years is a private seller. He doesn't deal in guns as his business as a merchant.

A dealer can buy guns from the factory, and when they sell them to people are required to have paperwork filled out and call in a background check.A private seller can only sell his own guns, obviously, and doesn't have access to the paperwork or background system. He is, however, prohibited by law from selling to a person he reasonably suspects is a prohibited possessor. So if 'Wild Eye' McReady with prison tats all over his face goes to buy my uncle's old shotgun, bragging about how he served 20 years for felony murder, my uncle is barred from selling to him.

Making any sense to you?

So I should be able to sell alcohol or pharmaceutical drugs from the trunk of my car or to relatives/neighbours/friends because I'm not a merchant?

You said guns are like books. Books don't require a background check. Books can't be sold to kids. Books can't be sold to felons. Books can be sold to the mentally ill. Start my not saying stupid shiat and then we could perhaps have some discussion on the subject.

Let's start over. Are you saying no one ever makes money on a personal sale? Are you saying a personal sales only happen between people who are related and who know each other?

pedrop357:firefly212: . the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places, that should anger the fark out of any responsible gun owner.

If you're in the business of selling guns, you have to have a license and do checks.

If you're just selling your private collection, it's no different than selling any other object that is protected by the constitution whether it's books, cameras, video games, etc.

So obviously stores shouldn't have to background checks either. Books are in Libraries so we should have gun Libraries as well right?

pedrop357:cameroncrazy1984: pedrop357: phalamir: pedrop357: LordJiro: pedrop357: JolobinSmokin: Good for them, gun owners are an oppressed group of ppl

If what's done to the 2nd amendment were done to any other enumerated or unenumerated right, the people wishing to exercise those rights would consider it oppression.

Yep, NO right is restricted in any way! That argument is in no way absolute bullshiat.

Gun nuts would be taken a little more seriously if they'd pull themselves off their goddamn crosses. For TOUGH MANLY SHOOTIN MEN, they do seem like a bunch of whiny pussies.

No right is as restricted as the right to bear arms

Maybe because the right to a speedy trial pretty much can't injure anyone

That's only relevant if you think that the people drafting the 2nd amendment had no idea that arms could be lethal.

I think mainly they couldn't predict repeating or automatic arms easily accessed by the general public.

The founders weren't gods or seers.

Get off of fark.com and send your reply on parchment paper filled out by quill pen and delivered by horse back carrier.

The founders couldn't predict home printing presses, personal movie studios, etc. yet all of those are protected by the 1st amendment.

The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment is that that general public had the right to the same arms that would be used by the militia.

If it's outdated, you and those who think like you should start a campaign to amend the constitution.

So, to sum up, you're defending a ** year old precept by saying the passing of time has changed the definition of words but that the law itself is still sound and relevant?.. in the twenty first century?.. but the words have changed their meaning?... but the law is still meaningful? ... That there's no way it needs .. oh what's the word... amending? ...

whidbey:GUTSU: As we all know home invasions, muggings, and rapes NEVER happen, EVER

So what's the big deal? Keep something at home to protect yourself. Overcompensating with a basement arsenal isn't necessary. And yeah, we have the right as a society to make such a determination.

Please, tell me how many guns is an "arsenal." Do muzzleloaders count? .22's, lever actions, bolt action, break action, semi-automatics, shotguns, do those count? Why does society get to decide how much personal property I, as a law abiding citizen can own?

whidbey:Oh great. Another Fark Gun Thread™ with way too many comments.

1. The NRA is very likely the biggest reason why we do not have an enforceable gun regulation policy.2. The NRA's successful lobbying for the (too powerful) gun manufacturing industry is why this country has a weapons black market, period.

Not to mention the fact that the NRA suppressed gun violence research.

So, have I been indirectly called Jethro, Cletus, a Rapeublican, implied to be complicit in the passing of the Patriot Act, implied to be complicit in child murder, or told to "die in a barricade situation after killing my family" (paraphrased)?You know who you are among the people I know as the Fark community and you should be ashamed of yourselves. Not because your concerns are misplaced, oh no. Murder and violent crime are tragic and despicable. No, you should be ashamed because you have applied the exact same kind of bigotry you likely denounce when it is aimed at homosexuals, skin colors, and cultures among whatever other groups can be thought up. And no, I'm not playing the victim, and no it's not a strawman. You demean me completely out of hand because I own an object which may be used or misused at my whim, yet you default into demonizing me because of how it has been misused by people other than and completely unrelated to me. That's bullshiat, and deep down you know it. It is incredibly naive and unfair of me, but dammit Fark, I expect better of you.

pedrop357:Yes there is. Because it's been abused before. There's the reason.

So put safeguards into place to keep it from happening. You could just as easily abuse car registration if you wanted to. And if you create harsh penalties for selling guns in a manner other than what's established by law, you'll find many fewer people willing to do it which will over time dry up the gun supply to the people who commit crimes with such guns.

Why is it that the Second Amendment is protected with such ferocity? What value does gun ownership have in a civilized society?

Modernizing the Second Amendment could vastly improve American culture. One sentence isn't sufficient to address the plethora of firearms and weapons that exist in the 21st century. Everyone knows that most firearm deaths are committed with hand guns. But what does anyone need with an Assault Rifle? And I hate when people pretend not to know what an assault rifle is. That rebuttal is intellectually dishonest. Like when people say "A screwdriver could be an assault weapon". Right, but when someone plans to commit mass murder, they have never chosen a screw driver. The semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine, like the AR15 has no civilian use. It's made for killing multiple human targets. That won't solve all problems, but it has a chance of solving just one.

I've wondered that if someone was able to make a pocket sized version of the Raetheon Active Denial System if that would be an acceptable weapon. It's "non-lethal" but I think being targeted with that would be absolute torture. Imagine what someone could do with that. Robbing and forcing someone's will away and leaving no evidence that it ever happened. And what happens when we get even more advanced than that? Suddenly the one sentence that is the Second Amendment seems even more inadequate. (if that's even possible) So it has been up to the courts to interpret and they seem to err on the side of not limiting freedom. As a result, high powered weapons that are designed to kill people manufactured prolifically and are therefor inexpensive and easy to obtain.

Bayou Otter- Yeah, here's the thing - I'd love to be able to perform a background check before I sold a rifle of mine. As a private face to face seller, not a dealer, I cannot do that. Pretty lame, right?

actually? you can - just contact your local PD and ask - and tack on the minimal charge to your selling price - it just takes some extra time and effort

Someone said it earlier. It's not a matter of whether the NRA can do this, it's a matter of whether they should do this. Criticizing these calls isn't an attempt to stifle free speech, it's just more free speech.

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

Have you no sense of decency?

Any love of the gun control crowd exploting children and even surrounding themselves with children during the signing of executive orders for the purpose of selling gun control?

I see that you're trying to use a hysterical example to somehow "prove" your point. I don't know how to address your piece of crap "point". Let's put it this way: I'm a gun owner who thinks that it should be more difficult to buy guns. I'm OK with background checks, and I'm OK with removing the "gun-show loopholes". I'm the only non-cop in a cop family, so I've been raised to respect firearms. I don't want any speculative gub'mint to "take yer guns", but jesuschrist, have a little perspective.

way south:firefly212: the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places

Selling a few guns privately is legal. Dealing large numbers of firearms without a license is a felony.The problem with UBC is they plan to make everything done without government permission a felony, which greatly affects alot of law abiding gun owners. Raising prices and complicating transfers.Since the government has been in the habit of giving guns away and turning a blind eye to straw purchasers and corrupt dealers, the fact is this law is written to ensnare people like you and me.Not the guy with a trunk full of guns.

/But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?

I'm ok with private gun sales... with background checks... I don't see what's so onerous about a $10 dollar fee (here in CO, that's part of the private background check law that just passed) to make sure that you're not selling to a violent felon or other prohibited person. The problem with the law, as it stood, is you could come up to me while I was selling my private collection out of the trunk on a street corner, and there wouldn't be crap you could do to prove that I was selling more than the allowed number of weapons, so long as I had fewer than the limit in my trunk. I mean, selling 9 guns out of my trunk at a time isn't any farking better than 29, and if I only sold 9 a day, you couldn't prove what I sold the day before because the total lack of a paperwork or background check or any other documentation requirement.

I don't think the robo-calls are a first amendment issue though, the NRA can call whoever they want... but we shouldn't get so wrapped up in what they *can* do to observe what they *should* do (totally different things). With respect to Newtown, they should have just obtained a list of the Newtown numbers and crossed them off their robocalling list. Calling those people is just as tone deaf of a play as when they held their convention here in CO right after Columbine.

The other problem with the NRA is they could get what they want, they could stop the AWB and magazine limits in just about every state... if they weren't so batshiat crazy against background checks. Just like with their woefully ineffective political spending, they seem so committed to a wackadoo ideology that they're losing the war simply by failing to be reasonable. Frankly, the NRA is to gun rights what the Westboro Baptist Church is for traditional marriage... they're so frickin committed to their cause to crazy extents that nobody wants to be with "that guy."

Listen - I'm a gun owner and a pretty good shooter. I frequently out-shoot my brother who is a cop (much to his dismay). Still, I f*cking HATE those NRA-types who try to turn a tragedy into a goddamn sales pitch.

way south:firefly212: the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places

Selling a few guns privately is legal. Dealing large numbers of firearms without a license is a felony.The problem with UBC is they plan to make everything done without government permission a felony, which greatly affects alot of law abiding gun owners. Raising prices and complicating transfers.Since the government has been in the habit of giving guns away and turning a blind eye to straw purchasers and corrupt dealers, the fact is this law is written to ensnare people like you and me.Not the guy with a trunk full of guns.

/But really, this is the internet era. Who still uses robo-calls?

I'd like the system to at least be available to private sellers/buyers. The last thing I'd want on my conscience was knowing I'd sold one of my guns to a raging nutcase/felon who has a burning desire to fill his ex-girlfriend full of holes. And If I was buying, it'd be nice to be assured that the gun hadn't been used in a crime. I'm not sure how the background check system can be made available to the general public without compromising people's privacy, though.

pedrop357:The "well regulated" portion does not restrict or confine the right to bear arms and you know it. "Well regulated" was used differently then compared to now and applied to the composition and training of the militia. You have to know that too.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But now that the U.S. has its own army, the militia is no longer needed, so no more guns for you. Please head down to your local recycling center and turn them all in and you get a free cookie.But if you don't want to tun them in, President Obama is setting up some "freedom lover" communes in a couple of States that will take your guns as soon as you enter. I think 'Citidel' was the name of one of them.

Town residents say the automated calls from the NRA began last week and urge people to tell their state legislators to oppose gun control proposals.

Just what realistic purpose does an automated calling machine have in modern America? Why the hell does anyone need to be able to place calls as fast as the machine can dial? This shiat is frightening. What, one call a day isn't enough? Their penis so small that they need to compensate with these "robocalls?" Look, they love their high calling capacity so much that they fetishize it with some mechanical name. Disgusting.

firefly212:That said, you'd have to be one of those mental patients to not see that selling guns without background checks is just nuts... the idea that you could quite literally sell guns out of your trunk in person to person transactions with no paperwork at all... and that it is legal in many places, that should anger the fark out of any responsible gun owner.